Gonzales, the consumer in this case, sued because Arrow implied a threat of negative credit reporting when it did not have the right to report the debt in the first place. The 9th Circuit agreed.

This decision (PDF) suggests that debt collectors cannot simply use a form that says if and leave it up to consumers to determine whether they are subject to the negative side of the if. In the 9th Circuit, at least, debt collectors may not threaten—even conditionally—unless they actually do have the right to do what they are threatening to do.

Sam Glover is a lawyer and the founder and Editor in Chief of Lawyerist.com. He also works with lawyers on motion practice and appeals, and is President of the board of directors of HOME Line, a nonprofit Minnesota tenant advocacy organization.